Jump to content
The Education Forum

EVIDENCE FOR HARVEY AND LEE (Please debate the specifics right here. Don't just claim someone else has debunked it!)


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 10/10/2019 at 7:50 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:
On 10/10/2019 at 6:54 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

One Oswald lost a front tooth during a fight at Beauregard JHS in the fall of 1954, but the Oswald exhumed decades later obviously had all his front teeth intact.

This is based on a fight that LHO was involved in, some witness statements and what true believers of the H&L theory think they see in photographs.

 

There are four pieces of corroborating evidence for Oswald losing that front tooth. See it here.

 

On 10/10/2019 at 7:50 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Again, Greg Parker has an alternate explanation at his site. No 2 Oswalds required.


By all means, check out Greg Parker's alternate explanation. You'll get a good chuckle!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ken Martinson said:
On 9/30/2019 at 7:23 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

And yet not one person out of the dozens or hundreds who knew her stepped forward to say she so. This article also addresses the silly assertion that the Evans' tried to tell the WC that she was an impostor:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-2.html

Let's put this in context:  My wife went back to Africa a few years ago and met her two brothers for the first time in 4 years. She said that she didn't recognize them -- adults about the age of 25 - 30. That is just 4 years. Imagine a woman aging for 10 years, and putting on the weight. Would people recognize her?

 

Tracy, nobody is saying that the Evans tried to tell the WC that Marguerite was an imposter.

Ken, what you write is irrelevant as to why I invoked the Evans' testimonies, that they didn't recognize Marguerite. What happened is that Tracy asked, if the Marguerite testifying before the WC was an imposter, why didn't friends of the real Marguerite come forward and say they didn't recognize this woman? And I replied that the Evans DID come forward and say that!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ken Martinson said:

OTOH, one solid piece of evidence cannot be denied, and can overturn a whole lot of speculation.

Did someone say something about a Mastoid bone in Harvey and Lee...

 

Why do you think that the mastoid bone is evidence that there was only one Oswald? Both Harvey and Lee could have had the surgery.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On five occasions now, Jim has avoided answering a simple question: why did John Armstrong not mention the mastoidectomy defect that was discovered on the body exhumed from Lee Harvey Oswald's grave?

The mastoidectomy defect contradicts a central part of Armstrong's theory. If the scientific evidence was true, Armstrong's theory was false.

He had nearly two decades to think up a way of getting around the problem. He didn't claim that the mastoidectomy defect was faked (the usual 'Harvey and Lee' excuse to explain away inconvenient evidence), or that the scientists were lying, or that the other imaginary doppelganger had undergone a mastoidectomy operation, or that the fictional bodies had been switched.

Armstrong simply ignored the problem. He didn't even tell his readers that the mastoidectomy defect existed.

Obviously, Armstrong knew what his readers would think if they learned about this piece of evidence. By keeping his readers in the dark, he deliberately misled them. His behaviour was that of a snake-oil salesman. Unless, that is, Jim has an alternative explanation for Armstrong's behaviour.

Let's try again to get a straight answer from Jim: why did John Armstrong not mention the mastoidectomy defect that was discovered on the body exhumed from Lee Harvey Oswald's grave?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most people with any interest in the whole 'Harvey and Lee' thing will be aware by now that there are plausible non-H&L explanations for the majority (at least) of the theory's talking points. Even if you don't agree with these explanations, you know that they exist.

Note the word 'plausible'. I'm not referring to evidence which absolutely disproves any of the theory's propositions, in the way that the Wiegman and Darnell films might (if they are ever released to the public) disprove the H&L and Warren Commission's assertion that Oswald was on the sixth floor during the assassination.

All I mean is that explanations exist which provide a plausible alternative interpretation of some of the evidence that is used in the H&L theory. For example, we discovered recently that there are plausible non-H&L explanations for the evidence in the Texas Theater incident: the police reports and the eye-witness accounts.

Tracy has provided links to many of these alternative explanations. Anyone who is interested in finding out more about a particular topic can make use of this new-fangled world wide web thing: follow the appropriate links, and follow the links to Jim's website, then compare the explanations and make up their own mind.

Repeating the same H&L talking points over and over again on thread after thread makes Jim look like a religious fundamentalist. It's also an ineffective way to promote the theory; it certainly hasn't won Jim many converts, and I'm sure everyone else is fed up with having to scroll past the same stuff again and again.

For Jim's sake, it would be better for him to do two things:

1 - To acknowledge publicly that some alternative explanations exist.

2 - To identify any H&L talking points that have not been addressed at all by the theory's critics, and to provide us with succinct accounts of those points, and only those points.

He wouldn't need to even consider the possibility that any of the alternative explanations may be better than his own explanations. But he would need to control his urge to repeat the same talking points over and over again while pretending that no-one has ever argued against them.

Jim would save himself and everyone else a lot of effort by concentrating on topics on which his critics have not yet provided alternative explanations, in the same way that Jim has not yet provided an alternative explanation for Armstrong's treatment of the mastoidectomy defect. Does that sound reasonable?

Edited by Jeremy Bojczuk
Corrected a typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

At least six times in this very thread, I have asked Jeremy Bojczuk to stop hiding behind his own misrepresentations of the mastoidectomy and debate ANY of the following pieces of evidence I have presented:

  • For the fall semester of the 1953-54 school year,  one Oswald attended Beauregard JHS in New Orleans for 89 school days while the other was enrolled in Public School 44 in New York City, where he was present for 62 full days and 5 half days, was absent 3 full days and 8 half days, for a total accounting of 78 days.
  • For the next semester, one Oswald was at Beauregard JHS in New Orleans while the other Oswald attended Stripling School in Texas.
  • One Oswald lost a front tooth during a fight at Beauregard JHS in the fall of 1954, but the Oswald exhumed decades later obviously had all his front teeth intact.
  • The Social Security Administration did not include ANY of “Lee Harvey Oswald’s” teen-aged employment income in his “Lifetime Earnings Report” indicating in a cover letter it was including “Copies of three pages of the Warren Commission Report re employment of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to service in the Marine Corps.”
  • One Oswald departed for Taiwan aboard the USS Skagit on Sept. 14, 1958 and was stationed in Ping Tung, Taiwan on Oct. 6, 1958, at the very same time the other Oswald was being treated for venereal disease at Atsugi, Japan, nearly 1500 miles away.
  • One Oswald appeared at the Bolton Ford dealership in New Orleans while the other was in the Soviet Union.
  • One Oswald had a driver’s license and was seen by many witnesses driving a car, and the other Oswald could not drive.
  • On November 22, 1963, one Oswald left the Texas School Book Depository on a bus and then a taxi, and the other left in a Nash Rambler.

Mr. B is clearly unwilling to do so.  Why?  Because he knows he will lose the debate.

Day after day and year after year, H&L critics like Mr. B say that the Harvey and Lee analysis is "crazy" and "idiotic" and that people who believe it wear "tin foil hats" and so on.  And yet, whenever I present some of the most simple and easy to explain pieces evidence for two Oswalds, they run away and whine that I am being repetitive.

I started this thread because, in another thread, Mr. Bojczuk repeated his usual refrain that the two Oswald analysis is less than credible.  He wants us to believe there are "alternate facts" to explain it all, and yet when challenged to produce these alternate facts, neither he nor anyone else is able to do so.  What a surprise!

   

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2019 at 12:18 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

No, Greg Parker and others documented Jack White's coaching of Kudlaty. If Kudlaty had independently gone to the authorities (or even to Armstrong) and told a story of confiscated records, it would carry more weight. But he only told his story AFTER talking to Jack White and hearing Armstrong's thesis. Again, search here at EF and find the threads.

I'm not going to let go of the false and scurrilous charge made above by Greg Parker and Tracy Parnell.  They have no evidence for it, and they know it.  It is all part of their effort to deny that "Lee Harvey Oswald" attended Stripling Junior High School in Fort Worth.  Why?  Because he was demonstrably elsewhere according to published school records.  Admitting "Oswald" attended Stripling School is admitting there were two Oswalds.

I've been working on a page for the H&L website that will put in one place all the evidence that "Oswald" DID attend Stripling.  Here's what I've got so far, though it is still a work in progress:

Stripling Junior High School

There is no mention of Stripling Junior High School by the Warren Commission, but the evidence is quite clear that one Oswald, Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald, attended it for a time, probably in the fall of 1954.  There is some confusion about the exact year because the FBI, as it did in New York City and New Orleans and in other Texas schools, confiscated all of "Lee Harvey Oswald's" original school and pre-Marine employment records and "lost" them, soon to be replaced by easy-to-alter black and white copies.

Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal of Stripling School in 1963, met two FBI agents at the school on the day after the assassination of JFK and handed them the school's records for Lee Harvey Oswald.  Those records completely disappeared while in FBI custody.  Not even black and white copies remained.
 

Frank_Kudlaty.jpg

 

Frank Kudlaty


To hear and see Frank Kudlaty discuss what REALLY happened at Stripling School, click here.

He got the year wrong, but Robert Oswald testified to the Warren Commission that his brother attended Stripling.
 

Mr. OSWALD. Just a minute, please. In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School then.
Mr. JENNER. I see. For the school year 1951-52?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Junior high school there was from the seventh to the ninth grades. And as soon as he was through with his sixth year, he started attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School.


On two separate occasions before the assassination of JFK,  Robert Oswald told a Fort Worth newspaper that his brother attended Stripling.  Read a 1959 article here and a 1962 article here.

Just two days after the assassination (11/24/63), the Fort Worth Star Telegram published the following article indicating Oswald attended Stripling School.

 

FWST_11_24_63_p_10.jpg

 

Four decades later, the 5/11/2002 edition of the same Fort Worth newspaper included an article commemorating the 75th anniversary of Stripling School, noting that “Lee Harvey Oswald” was its best-known student, and making note of the infamous Thomas Place address.  "Marguerite Oswald" was living at 2220 Thomas Place on the day of the assassination of JFK.

FWST_5_11_02_p_25_75th.jpg
 

Before the assassination, on April 2, 1963, Fort Worth Star Telegram had a short article indicating that Frank Kudlaty was indeed the assistant principal of Stripling School.

 

FWST_4_2_63.jpg

 

One of Harvey Oswald’s classmates was Fran Schubert, who watched watched him walk home from Stripling School to 2220 Thomas Place, long before "Marguerite Oswald" supposedly lived at that address.
 

 

Fran_Schubert.jpg

click here for 1997 interview with Fran Schubert

In the 1990s, Stripling School principal Ricardo Galindo told John Armstrong that it was “common knowledge” that “Lee Harvey Oswald” attended Stripling.

John also spoke to local student Bobby Pitts, who remembered that Oswald attended Stripling with his younger brother and that he (Bobby) remembered seeing (Harvey) Oswald standing on the porch at 2220 Thomas Place, directly across the street from Stripling.  John also spoke with former Stripling student Doug Gann, who attended ninth grade at Stripling with Harvey and remembered that he live “across the street from the basketball courts and one or two houses to the left,” which exactly describes 2220 Thomas Place, where “Marguerite Oswald” lived at the time of the assassination of JFK. Audio recordings of these witnesses will be made available sometime during 2020.

"Lee Harvey Oswald's" presence at Stripling School has not been forgotten, despite the disappearance of all records while in FBI custody.  A Fort Worth Star-Telegram article from November 2017 indicated that Oswald’s “teachers and classmates remember him at Stripling, though there is no official record.”  Read the article here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

Mr. B is clearly unwilling to do so.  Why?

Because, as Mr B and others have pointed out several times, and as Jim knows very well, those topics have been debated over and over again on this forum and elsewhere. If Jim, or anyone else, wants to find out what the arguments are, he only has to look. The links have been provided. Click them and find out.

Quote

H&L critics like Mr. B say that ... people who believe it wear "tin foil hats" and so on.

Of course the 'tin-foil hat' description applies to those few people who take the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy seriously. The theory doesn't just claim that Oswald was impersonated here and there, and that he was involved in some way with one or more US intelligence agencies. Neither of those claims is unreasonable. There's nothing tin-foil-hattish there.

What deserves the 'tin-foil hat' term is the essential feature of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory. It posits an enormous and outrageously unlikely plot in which, at a minimum, the following alleged facts were true:

1 - Two unrelated boys from different parts of the world, native speakers of two different languages, were chosen to participate in a long-term doppelganger scheme from an early age.

2 - The two unrelated boys magically grew up to look identical (or not quite identical, whenever that suits the theory better) more than a decade later.

3 - One of the two unrelated but identical-looking boys vanished from the face of the earth immediately after the assassination. No-one connected to the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy seems bothered by this sudden disappearance.

4 - Each boy had a very similar-looking mother named Marguerite. The two similar-looking Marguerites were not related to each other. The foreign-born Marguerite was a native speaker of American English, unlike her son.

5 - One of the two unrelated but similar-looking Marguerites vanished from the face of the earth immediately after the assassination. Again, no-one connected to the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy seems bothered by this sudden disappearance.

6 - On the day of the assassination, one of the Oswald doppelgangers followed the other Oswald doppelganger around Dallas so that he could frame him for the assassination.

7 - The body of the doppelganger who was buried in Oswald's grave had not undergone a mastoidectomy operation, a fact contradicted by solid scientific evidence which was published in a reputable scientific journal two decades before the Harvey and Lee book appeared. The author of the book didn't bother to explain the discrepancy, and in fact didn't even mention the problem, hoping his readers wouldn't notice.

The 'Harvey and Lee' theory is the most absurd explanation for any aspect of the assassination that doesn't involve little green men or shape-shifting lizards. 'Tin-foil hat' is the appropriate description.

As Jonathan Cohen pointed out, one prominent 'Harvey and Lee' fantasist, Jack White, believed that the moon landings photos were faked and that no planes actually hit the World Trade Center. Does anyone seriously think that 'tin-foil hatter' isn't an appropriate description of the late Mr White? If not, how crazy would someone have to be to deserve the term?

You can't get any crazier than thinking that no planes hit the World Trade Center, can you? No fewer than 157 people (including the ten hijackers) died on those planes. Can you imagine the effect Jack White's fact-free paranoid speculation would have on the victims' families and friends? White was not only a tin-foil hatter, but a despicable one at that. It really is no surprise that someone with that mentality helped to invent the 'Harvey and Lee' fantasy.

Quote

I started this thread because, in another thread, Mr. Bojczuk repeated his usual refrain that the two Oswald analysis is less than credible.  He wants us to believe there are "alternate facts" to explain it all, and yet when challenged to produce these alternate facts, neither he nor anyone else is able to do so.

Jim started this thread to divert attention from the pasting he was getting in the 'Two Oswalds in the Texas Theater' thread, in which it was pointed out that the evidence for an Oswald doppelganger being arrested in the balcony is very weak and can be much more plausibly explained in other ways. Again, anyone who's interested can click the link and find out what the arguments are.

Mr B does not want anyone "to believe there are 'alternate facts' to explain it all". Mr B pointed out an alternative explanation for the evidence which Jim brought up, namely the police reports and the eye-witness statements. There is a big difference between facts and explanations. This confusion in Jim's thinking may indicate where his one-dimensional, religious-fundamentalist attitude comes from.

Now, let's ask Jim for the seventh time to provide a plausible explanation for John Armstrong's failure to even mention the mastoidectomy defect, the scientific fact which contradicts a central part of Armstrong's theory. He didn't mention it because he wanted to keep his readers in the dark, didn't he? Or does Jim have a more plausible explanation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I'm not going to let go of the false and scurrilous charge made above by Greg Parker and Tracy Parnell.  They have no evidence for it, and they know it.

No one is making a "scurrilous" charge. Everything about a witness must be considered when determining that witnesses credibility. Here are some facts about Kudlaty. He claims he witnesses a confiscation of records by the FBI. But did he ever come forward to report this to anyone before his encounter with Armstrong and White? No.

What were the circumstances by which this information became public? Jack White told Greg Parker that he had a 50-year friendship with Kudlaty. And as everyone knows, White was Armstrong's mentor and the biggest backer of the H&L theory. So, these facts call into question the manner by which Kudlaty related his story. Was he approached by White and told about the H&L theory? And did he only then "remember" the records confiscation? These are pertinent facts and if this were a criminal investigation, the authorities would consider this when evaluating Kudlaty as a potential witness.

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

He got the year wrong, but Robert Oswald testified to the Warren Commission that his brother attended Stripling.

He got more than the year wrong. Robert, who wasn't even around at the time, merely assumed that his brother had attended the same school. And the newspapers repeated what he told them. And the "witnesses" were speaking 40 plus years after the fact and after they no doubt received the pitch from Armstrong that they were witnesses to history. And the recent article you mention admits "there is no official record" of LHO at Stripling.

 

Edited by W. Tracy Parnell
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Invisible Ping Tung Teenager and his visible alter ego the Atsugi Kid.  Or, sometimes it’s the other way around.

Jim Hargrove wrote in his recent thread, “One Oswald departed for Taiwan aboard the USS Skagit on Sept. 14, 1958 and was stationed in Ping Tung, Taiwan on Oct. 6, 1958, at the very same time the other Oswald was being treated for venereal disease at Atsugi, Japan, nearly 1500 miles away.”

Actually, Lee Oswald had a urine track infection misdiagnosed as a VD.  This was a common occurrence with that particular virus found around US military installations in both Korea and Japan.  It was treatable only with sulfa drugs such as Pyridium and another, Furadantin.  In the mid-1960s in Korea, the first thing you were told by the medical people on arrival is “Do Not Drink The Water” and “Do Not Eat the Food”, locally.  You will regret it.

And that aside, aside, let’s return to the Invisible Ping Tung Teenager.  Either Harvey Oswsald is visible or invisible depending on the author supporting what I will call the One Oswald Theory.  I will use W. Tracy Parnell’s Oswald timeline and Jack R. Swike’s book The Missing Chapter:  Lee Harvey Oswald In The Far East.

W. Tracy Parnell shows Oswald’s service in Taiwan as such in Interactive Timeline of the Life of Lee Harvey Oswald:

"September 14, 1958: LHO and his unit sail for the South China Sea.

 

September, 1958: LHO's unit arrives in Taiwan, where he suffers a nervous breakdown

and is sent back to Japan.

 

October 5, 1958: LHO arrives in Atsugi.”

 

This is a fine example of how the One Oswald Theory works.  Simply ignore what is going on elsewhere.  If you put an Oswald in Taiwan then ignore the one at Atsugi.  The October 5, 1958 example changes Iwakuni to Atsugi.  Just change what you need to change.

 

Harvey Oswald was assigned to another Marine Japanese base, Iwakuni, for a short period of time after he left Ping Tung, Taiwan.  Parnell ignores this entirely.

 

On the other hand Jack R. Swike does the opposite in his One Oswald theory.  He denies there was an Oswald at Taiwan or later at Iwakuni.  He ignores any information not related to Lee Oswald at Atsugi, Japan.

 

You can work the One Oswald Theory either way.  The important thing is to ignore information else where on a different Oswald.    

 

Edited by John Butler
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John Butler said:

This is a fine example of how the One Oswald Theory works.  Simply ignore what is going on elsewhere.  If you put an Oswald in Taiwan then ignore the one at Atsugi.

Speaking of ignoring, you are ignoring the updated timeline I just posted:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2019/10/lho-far-east-chronology.html

The previous timeline was done years ago and was meant to be a general reference for students and researchers. At the bottom of my new timeline are links to discussions and alternate explanations regarding the Japan scenario in H&L. BTW, if you go to Greg Parker's site, there is an entire section called "Alternate Explanations" (for all aspects of H&L) that is several pages.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Because, as Mr B and others have pointed out several times, and as Jim knows very well, those topics have been debated over and over again on this forum and elsewhere. If Jim, or anyone else, wants to find out what the arguments are, he only has to look. The links have been provided. Click them and find out.

As I predicted in the very title of this thread, people such as Mr. Parnell and Mr. Bojczuk are clearly unable to debate the simple examples of two Oswalds summarized below.  This is at least the seventh time I have challenged Mr. B to debate ANY of these points, but all he can do is say the answer is somewhere else, not here. Your links debunk nothing in the list below.  If you think they do, stop hiding and put the evidence here.   Again...

  • For the fall semester of the 1953-54 school year,  one Oswald attended Beauregard JHS in New Orleans for 89 school days while the other was enrolled in Public School 44 in New York City, where he was present for 62 full days and 5 half days, was absent 3 full days and 8 half days, for a total accounting of 78 days.
  • For the next semester, one Oswald was at Beauregard JHS in New Orleans while the other Oswald attended Stripling School in Texas.
  • One Oswald lost a front tooth during a fight at Beauregard JHS in the fall of 1954, but the Oswald exhumed decades later obviously had all his front teeth intact.
  • The Social Security Administration did not include ANY of “Lee Harvey Oswald’s” teen-aged employment income in his “Lifetime Earnings Report” indicating in a cover letter it was including “Copies of three pages of the Warren Commission Report re employment of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to service in the Marine Corps.”
  • One Oswald departed for Taiwan aboard the USS Skagit on Sept. 14, 1958 and was stationed in Ping Tung, Taiwan on Oct. 6, 1958, at the very same time the other Oswald was being treated for venereal disease at Atsugi, Japan, nearly 1500 miles away.
  • One Oswald appeared at the Bolton Ford dealership in New Orleans while the other was in the Soviet Union.
  • One Oswald had a driver’s license and was seen by many witnesses driving a car, and the other Oswald could not drive.
  • On November 22, 1963, one Oswald left the Texas School Book Depository on a bus and then a taxi, and the other left in a Nash Rambler.

Unfortunately for Mr. B, no combination of taunts, insults, and misrepresentations can make the evidence in this case go away.  He, like Mr. Parnell, is clearly afraid to discuss it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Speaking of ignoring, you are ignoring the updated timeline I just posted:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2019/10/lho-far-east-chronology.html

The previous timeline was done years ago and was meant to be a general reference for students and researchers. At the bottom of my new timeline are links to discussions and alternate explanations regarding the Japan scenario in H&L. BTW, if you go to Greg Parker's site, there is an entire section called "Alternate Explanations" (for all aspects of H&L) that is several pages.

I had a look at the new timeline.  It doesn't seem much different from the old.  There are a few more details, but Lee Oswald at Atsugi, Japan is still ignored.  Physical evidence, real documentation, shows that Harvey is on the USS Skagit, in Taiwan, and at Iwakuni, Japan at the same times that Lee Oswald is at Atsugi, Japan.

Jim Hargrove has posted that material several times which you One Oswald folks ignore.

Edited by John Butler
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Butler said:

I had a look at the new timeline.  It doesn't seem much different from the old.  There are a few more details, but Lee Oswald at Atsugi, Japan is still ignored.  Physical evidence, real documentation, shows that Harvey is on the USS Skagit, in Taiwan, and at Iwakuni, Japan at the same times that Lee Oswald is at Atsugi, Japan.

Jim Hargrove has posted that material several times which you One Oswald folks ignore.

My timeline does not "ignore" LHO at Atsugi. From the 5th to the 13th I have him on general duty and then at the Atsugi Naval Hospital. And no one is ignoring the H&L "evidence." If one looks at the documentation you refer to in a vacuum, then you can reach the silly conclusion that there were 2 Oswalds. Greg Parker discuses this in detail at his site in a thread titled "The Skagit." 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...